A Positive on SP2

[N400QW 205]

For nearly a year and a half we've observed the negative response in these forums to FSX RTM, SP1 and now SP2. It seems right to make a positive post to encourage a few of you who may be experiencing the downside with SP2.Aces recommends newer hardware for best results in FSX and like many of you I've put it off for quite a long time thinking I'll get time for it some day....Please note that this observation is made from a user standpoint, not as developer and any reference to our products is for illustration only. The only other developer reference is that to do our work we must, from time to time, do a complete clean install of every thing and bring it back to default baseline.Now to the point of the post. I recently did a modest hardware upgrade then a clean install of FSX/SP1. Then SP2 installed seamlessly and I proceeded to set up my hardware/drivers and it too went off without a hitch.Started FSX and was surprised to see that someone had sneaked in given me a whole new sim experience as I flew over the countryside with sliders mid to high at 1680X1050 and 8X AA and 4X AF.:-)Glass smooth with no blurries and not a stutter to be had so I was extremely pleased with what I was experiencing. Took our FSX Twin Comanche for a spin around the countryside just before dusk and decided to check FPS just for the feedback and nearly fell off the chair. The average FPS was running from 97 to 120!Please note, this is bog standard FSX on a clean install with SP2 and the following modest hardware upgrade and not ONE tweak to any configuration file in the sim.This post is for encouraging FSX/SP2 users and is NOT intended as a debate or tutorial on how to accomplish anything. Just some friendly advice as a user:-)Oh yes, the modest hardware specs: Off the shelf Acer Aspire ASE 380400GB SATA DriveVista32 Home PremiumAMD 4800+ 64X2 CPU3GB DDR2BFG 8800GT 512 MB22" Widescreen Samsung 226BW So.... modest hardware upgrade, clean install, NO config tweaks CAN do wonders for your experience!Hope this encourages some of you.

[Geofa 108]

Interesting Ron-I did the same thing two weeks ago. I've been doing this since 1981 and have learned to upgrade my computer a year after release-not to the best but to the next to best. Seems to give best value to $.My results match yours-and though I was happy before-I am elated now.Amazes me though that the upgrade cost me 1/3 of what it used to-not adding inflation differences which would make it even cheaper.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[N400QW 205]

Exactly Geof! My old habit was to wait a while then build the latest/greatest hotrod machine myself.Now I'm amazed that a modest off the shelf machine and NO config tweaks can offer this kind of FSX/SP2 performance at such low cost and no tweaking headaches.:-)

[tvl 0]

Hi there, I too have had the same experience as the both of you. After a major video upgrade (8800gt), FSX with Acceleration is very enjoyable to fly. I have tried reverting to FS9 on two occasions but the performance was no where in the league of DX10 so I have left behind what doesn't work and only use what does work. I am looking forward to what will be offered for FSX Accel/SP2 and hope things keep going this well until the next time to upgrade comes along. Hopefully there are others out there who enjoy this version of Flight Simulator as well.Tony

[Highmike 68]

I for one am very impressed with FSX. I was struggling with my old P4 rig when it first went gold, but I've since upgraded to an AMD 6000+ and an 8800 GTX, and the frame rates are excellent. The texture resolution of the default scenery is one feature which stands out compared to FS9, but the qaulity of a few of the birds has really raised the bar for other developers to compete with. The Grumman Goose is exceptional as are both of the Cessnas, and the Boeing 737. I can't wait for FS11 to resolve a number of outstanding issues, but in the mean time FSX is a very flyable sim.Mike.

[N400QW 205]

Agreed Mike, seems the common denominator for us in this thread is daul core or greater and the Nvidea 8800 series. I'm sure that over time the ATI guys will report similar results:-)

[vgbaron 3,627]

Couldn't agree more, Ron! I am ecstatic with the current state of FSX on my system. I just purchased your Twin Comanche and was very pleasantly surprised at the overall performance. Considering that I loaded up my install with ASX, GEX, UTX, FEX and FSGenesis I still get great performance. As I have always stated, I only check framerates when I'm testing. Otherwise I go for the look and feel and I can say without reservation that the look and feel of FSX/ACC/SP2 is second to none.In the Maule flying around Alaska, I got a high of 170fps - flying the Twin Comanche around JFK dropped me down to 13 - 14 BUT without showing the framerate I couldn't tell the difference.Glad to have a positive thread for a change. It gets irritating to see someone post about a legitimate problem only to be followed by a bunch of "everyone knows FSX is crap" posts by people who haven't even bought FSX.As an aside, I think it's funny that until I read the post by Steve Halpern I wasn't aware that the VC rain was broken. :)VicQ6600 G0 CPU 2.4 o/c 3.65Evga 680i A1 with P31 BIOS 2G XP2-8500 DDR2 1066FSB Mushkin 996535 RAM 5-5-4-12-2T320G 7200 HD partitioned for XP/Vista/Programs 2 - 74G Raptors in RAID0 500G 7200 HD for backup SATA DVD burner Evga 8800GTS 640 PCIx 169.13 beta driver Kandalf LCS case w/ built in liquid cooling 850W Thermaltake power supplyVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/banners/hifi-supporter-sigbanner.jpgRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

[N400QW 205]

Yup, I'm still in shock that such a simple standard install and modest hardware changes can make such a difference under SP2. Best of all, no configuration tweaking, just load and fly and no need to even look at the fps counter.Pure enjoyment and no downside is what keeps coming to mind.Hope this is an encouragement to others:-)

[Paul J 349]

.. Just gotta let you know - some of us have been enjoying your new-found experience for just about a year, Ron! :-) Welcome to the club! With GEX, UTX, ASX/G, your Citation II and few others - for me it's been a fabulous ride. Even with the latest aggro of "fixing" the prop/s and canopy on the RA Spit and MAAM-Sim's B25, the canopy and instruments on the LIC Eagle - it's been worth it! I love this sim.FS9 disappeared about four weeks ago, and the FS9 sources went into a 200gig "fs9" folder, with some very fond memories. It's gone.:-bigangel:-beerchug

[tf51d 284]

Well for me performance was never the issue with SP2, the main problem is the backward compatibility issue. I know there are fixes for the textures, but I have the Overland Boeing and Airbus series with most liveries, as well as a large number of WOAI and UT aircraft, all affected, that fixing all of them is just not feasible or worth the effort, for the little graphic improvement we got in SP2. However if you are a bloom user (Which I'm not) the difference in performance between DX9 and the DX10 preview with bloom on is quite dramatic, so in that case it may be worth the effort for those users.

[N400QW 205]

Ha Ha, Paul, that's what I get for waiting too long:-lol My only lame excuse is that I told myself I was too busy in developemnt and didn't want to upset a good working development rig and that I needed to use what simmers are using to evaluate products and performance.Given this experience, I wouldn't wait this long again.:-)

[N400QW 205]

Tom, the focus here is not on the back compat issues since over time, developers will catch up on what can or will be fixed.This is only to encourage those out there who may have thrown up their hands and walked away when simple solutions are available to them:-)

[tf51d 284]

I understand that, but I think backward compatibility is the main issue with SP2. SP2 Performance in both XP and Vista in DX9 has modestly improved with the biggest jump as I noted in DX10 with Bloom on. So if performance is the main concern, SP2 in most cases will, as you stated make the sim faster and smoother. For users though that have a large number of FS9 aircraft, we shouldn't be sugar coating the problems they will inevitably see by installing SP2. For them like myself, they will have to make the decision whether the positives outweigh the negatives. For me I'm lucky since I have a dual boot system with 2 licensed FSX installations. So I run SP2/Acceleration on Vista and the rest of my flying is on SP1 in Windows XP.

[N400QW 205]

Hmm, I fail to see how the backward compatibility issues are being sugar coated with regard to a positive post about SP2.Backward compatibility is an FSX/DX10 and vNext issue and most of those issues will be resolved over time by their respective developers if they want to remain viable. My point is that SP2 is not specifically the culprit with regard to backward compatibility but does in fact help the sim be it Vista or XP.Simply put, simmers have a LOT more choices to make with FSX and we are simply attempting to boil things down and make it easier and clearer for them to make choices that fit them.:-)

[David Roch 1,982]

OMG!, Ron and Lou begin to appreciate FSX...I'd better throw my credit card away before my wife throw me away from home!*:-*